2022-TIOL-1120-CESTAT-KOL
Amiya Traders Vs CC
Cus - The O-I-O dated 28.02.2019 was communicated to appellant on 14.03.2019 and accordingly he was required to file appeal before First Appellate Authority within sixty days, i.e., on or before 14.05.2019, but however, appeal was filed only on 31.05.2019, i.e., after expiry of statutory period from the date of communication of order - Though the appellant had filed appeal beyond the statutory period, but it was filed within condonable period of 30 (thirty) days - However, Commissioner (A) chose not to condone the delay and rejected the appeal before him without going into the merits of case - Delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (A) is condoned and it founds appropriate to remand the matter to Commissioner (A) for deciding appeal on merits without further visiting the aspect of limitation: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: KOLKATA CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1119-CESTAT-KOL
Maithan Ispat Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
CX - The dispute arises is, whether Cenvat credit is admissible in respect of HR Sheets, HR Plates and MS Rods used for fabrication of Steel Formers which is in nature of a consumable in appellant's induction furnace - Impugned goods are used for manufacture of Steel Formers which is used as liner of Appellant's induction furnace and such Steel Formers get consumed in process of Appellant's manufacturing process - Cenvat credit in respect of impugned goods has been denied on the ground that Steel Formers "fall under Chapter 73 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985" - Authorities below have categorically admitted that impugned goods are used in fabrication of Steel Former, which undisputedly gets consumed in process of Appellant's manufacturing of finished goods - Since the functional usage of metal casing in Eastern Electro Chemicals Industries and also MS Round in case of Sova Ispat Alloys is almost identical to Steel Formers in present case, ratio of the aforesaid decisions are squarely applicable to appellant's case at hand - Impugned orders cannot be sustained and are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1118-CESTAT-AHM
Kohler India Corporation Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - A team of Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of appellant and documents related to Cenvat Credit availed on services received from various service providers were called - It was noticed by revenue that appellant has received services from various service provider for setting-up of factory - A detail SCN was issued proposing denial of Cenvat Credit on inputs services and to recover ineligible Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on disputed input services along with applicable interest and penalty - Appeal pertains to period February 2008 to June 2009, adjudicating authority decided the matter on the basis of old theory of law that services are related to immovable properties hence Cenvat credit is not admissible - Entire finding of Adjudicating authority is based on old theory of law and subsequently, much water was flown on the issue - Adjudicating authority needs to give a fresh look in entire case in the light of various judgements given subsequent to passing of impugned order - Adjudicating authority in respect of most of the services denied the credit on the ground that there is no nexus between services with manufacturing activity of appellant and clearance of goods or for their business activity - All the services per se are prima facie input services held in various judgments, however, admissibility of Cenvat credit on these services can be decided on the basis that whether services were used for purpose specified in definition of input service - Therefore, entire matter needs to be re-considered - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1117-CESTAT-AHM
CCE, C & ST Vs Aalidhra Textool Engineers Pvt Ltd
ST - Assessee is a manufacturer of textile machinery and as per contract they have supplied the goods along with Erection, Commissioning and Installation at buyer's site - On entire activity, right from manufacturing upto commissioning of machinery at buyer's site, total value is towards the sale of goods - There is no bifurcation of value in sale of goods and service of Erection, Installation and Commissioning - It is settled that where entire value of goods is towards sale of goods and subjected to excise duty/customs duty no part of same can be said to have been collected towards any service - Therefore, involving the same set of facts, in present case where the entire value has suffered excise duty and the buyer is under obligation to not only manufacture and supply the machinery but also to carry out activity of erection, commissioning and installation of said machinery, service tax cannot be demanded - Revenue also made a ground that after 01.06.2007, service is classifiable and taxable under works contract service - However, SCNs have proposed demand under erection, installation and commissioning service - Tribunal is not dealing with second issue about classification of service that whether the service tax is payable under erection, installation and commissioning service or works contract service - Assessee is not liable to pay service tax in given transaction of present case therefore, revenue's appeal is not sustainable accordingly, impugned order is upheld: CESTAT
- Appeals dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
